MAHARANA KUNWAR Vs. EVDAVID

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for a declaration that she is the owner in possession of a certain house situated in the city of Cawnpore; and that the insolvent, defendant No. 2, had no concern with it, and it is not liable to be attached by the official receiver. The house in question was purchased on the 29th of May, 1914, under a registered sade-deed in the name of the plaintiff. Some years afterwards, in 1919, Chhote Lal defendant, the plaintiff's husband, entered into a partnership with one Ram Dutt--a commission agency business--which ultimately failed in 1920. On the petition of certain creditors, the firm was adjudicated an insolvent, and the official receiver took charge of the insolvent's estate. On the 6 of November, 1920, he attached the house in question as property belonging to the insolvent Chhote Lal. The report of the receiver says that the present plaintiff protested and stated that the house belonged to her parents.

(2.) It is important to note that she made no attempt to seek redress in the insolvency court, but filed this regular suit for a declaration on the 21 of February, 1921.

(3.) The official receiver, who mainly contested the suit, pleaded that the house belonged to the insolvent and not to the plaintiff. It was further urged that the plaintiff not having raised any objection at the time of the attachment was estopped from suing; that her only remedy was to file objections in the insolvency court within 21 days of the attachment and the civil court had no jurisdiction to try this case, and, lastly, that the permission of the insolvency court was necessary before the institution of the suit.